Scrumpot

Here's my take on your question: Whenever you are training students with a method or gear that is going to vary from the actual gear they are going to soon enough in practice, have to actually use - it introduces some potential minuses. I think you compound those minuses too, when it involves EP's. It used to be, back in the day (not too long ago actually), students would start on 100% ripcord. Some systems mocked a BOC with the ripcord, others with a handle on the hip, or lower MLW. That caused some interesting "transitions" that I've even personally witnessed, even in of itself. And that would be for folks going for "routine", "normal" main deployments. Now add in the added stress of EP's, and IMHO - that is something you just don't want to mess with. JMO. With the variants of potential SOS systems out there, it is just plain simply adding that VARIANT transition in of itself is all, that can open up the same "confusion" possibilities, once that student transitions over to a true 2-handle system that no doubt, with their own gear upon purchase, going to need to use. Further, I've seen students do some really "curious" things, - for lack of better word. That's what this thread is all about! What I was replying to, as I understand it was being described, is an SOS system whereby what would be the cut-away pillow is actually a "dummy". IOW, when that handle/pillow is pulled, it does NOTHING. Then, the Reserve handle (d-ring?) acts as an SOS. Am I understanding the description correctly? I just think that is a bad training methodology. Here's why: Ever see or hear of a student or low-timer rely on their RSL? I know, just like a Cypres, they are trained (oblviously) NOT to "rely" on it. But it happens. So in this above SOS description case - you are telling the student that they have a "dummy handle", so that they practice their EP's such that they will mimic the gear they will use later on, but it is an SOS activated by the reserve handle. Sounds good, right? What could go wrong? All depends ON YOUR STUDENT, and how their brain works and what they heard. In an actual EP, in their brain, are they gonna remember that the cut-away handle is a "dummy" and think (smartly in their mind) that they are better off (and correct even) in pulling JUST THE SILVER? I'll bet some would. And this would work out just fine for them in this situation. But it is BAD training and sets them up for a very bad outcome should that action become ingrained in their mind on their future gear! Then another (possibly worse) scenario. Because you are doing training that only MIMICS what their later "real" gear would do - and you are trying to be consistent with EP's handle pull order and expectations (all sounds good, so far) - in an actual EP during that student progression, on that student gear - the student pulls the cut-away AND NOTHING HAPPENS... Did they "expect" to now be cut-away? Will they "freeze" because of this? - Think about it. I know you will argue "no they won't" because we are training them to pull BOTH handles... but just like with the RSL reaction (which I've seen) - Will they? Probably? Maybe? Maybe not. I dunno. It's a VARIABLE, and see - it at least introduces, IMHO a potential negative, that I think needs to be considered is all. Sorry for the long post, but hopefully as a result this made SOME sense, and helped you to think of the variables, and the possibilities, with ANY system. None of them are a "magic bullet", which I think one of the OP's in here was trying to state - that by having this system "it is the best", and it "cures all". Which again, IMHO it does not. Whew. ...Am I done typing yet? Anyway, again - I hope the added perspective is of some actual help. Blue Skies! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Hey LM! ...Glad to hear you're coming back with us again, to play once more amongst us not only just in the "virtual world" (ie: in here) but as well, actually back actively in the skies!

Place it BY ITSELF with nothing else, in a standard size, fits into the over-head, normal every-day regular roll-on/carry-on, and chances are, no one will ever even say/notice a thing! I fly commercially with my rig at least 6-10 times per year, and this is what I do with very RARE problems of any sort. I've been asked to remove it from the bag to show a TSA supervisor once. Have it "swabbed" once", and asked about in general (hey - is that a parachute, etc.) maybe a couple of times. But never any real incident or problem. Print out the TSA/FAA Notice of authorization, and have it laying on top of the rig in the bag. That way, IF it is even opened, that is the 1st thing the screener will see. Also, I take my chest strap, and wrap it several times around the MLW INSIDE the reserve handle, to SECURE the reserve handle in it's pocket. Just in case one of those guys ever thought it was a "lift handle" and WOOPS! I've heard of people using zip-ties for this too, but I prefer to use my cheststrap, as I'm gonna need to undo that when I gear up anyway, - impossible to forget it (not that you should forget or miss finding a zip-tie either before jumping/gear check, but....) And that's pretty much it. Never check your rig - even in a "sealed" bag. I won't argue with other people who do, do this, as to why - just don't. And if you ever do get a TSA guy that gets a bit "testy" about it, remain cool and non-combative. The last thing you want to do is tick off a "dick" on a power-trip. Ask for a supervisor, and present your case in a calm, quiet, professional manner. No, nothing should be unpacked. If they ask you to unpack it, explain that this is no problem for the main, and you'd be happy to. They need to take you somewhere private where you can have room to do this, and re-pack it so it fits back in the bag. If they ask about the reserve (they probably won't) - show 'em the FAA RIGGERS SEAL, and Reserve repack data card, and explain to them it has been SEALED (inspected/packed/re-packed already) "BY THE FAA". Again - you PROBABLY won't ever even need any of this. Just put it in that normal-looking civilian carry/roll-on (remember to remove any hook-knives if you've got 'em - and check those!), and chances are you'll roll right through. Good luck, and enjoy your skydiving trip/travels! Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Fly into ONT instead of LAX, if you have that option. Seems like you've got enough time to plan well in advance. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

So you're saying that in a "slow" malfunction scenario, but one where a cutaway by the student is clearly required, that when (if) they pull the "dummy" cut-away handle nothing happens? I can see some minus' to that system as well. No system is "perfect". Each has its plus' and minus'. Think about it. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

And interestingly enough Peek (one of the "oldest" ones in here to reply to you, sorry Gary ) - actually seemed to get (and appreciate) whatever that was, too! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Man - I still shed a tear, that my west coast "home away from home" is now no more. Hope Van & Alberta are enjoying their retirement. THANKS CAL CITY, for the memories! Blues Skies Forever, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Okay - putting my flame-retardant-suit on here now, and bracing myself, aren't some of us being maybe just a little harsh on the poor ol' indubitable Mr. Lutz? For the record, I've gotten the answer to my question a few posts above, provided to me in PM - and find THIS now, to be interesting reading in specific reference to this. I thought perhaps where it has now been brought up (and for some of us shouting in our heads now - yes... AGAIN regardless), that re-referencing perhaps maybe just a few of the DETAILS and facts/further insights to this "story" (now legend?) might be yet again good, for some. It's a long post, but IMHO it is also informative - and heck ...YOU GUYS BROUGHT IT UP! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

From Fort Drum, you're prolly about equidistant to/from Fingerlakes as well. Generally not a turbine DZ, but cool place, and definitely worth the checking out while you are "there" (in the region) anyway, in any case, IMHO. Continue down 17 (the "Northway" as it's called from all the way up there) into NW NJ for a road-trip, and I'd also recommend Sky's The Limit for yet another visit experience. Get out n about! Why limit yer experiences, whilst you've got the opportunity? Cool places, with very different (yet positive) "vibes" each of these 3. Good luck - ENJOY! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

The Lutz video is at least a good case for illustrating "don't rely on your RSL". (they can fail). I think it's probably been discussed (and probably ad-nauseum) elsewhere, but my inclination to search and sift through myriads of posts to find it today is really low - so maybe somebody in here just knows and can advise - in this particular case (Lutz), did his RSL fail, or was it found to be disconnected, rig not equipped, or what? I know I've seen conversation in the instructors forums about dumping the main when an AFF Student actually gets their cut-away, as Lutz did - and was done in this case - and theoretically that SHOULD as a result, bottom line get a good reserve over their heads (with an RSL pull) - but in this case, that did not seem to happen. Sorry for the hijack, but this has now just gotten me curious. Does anyone happen in the Lutz case, to just know what also happened there? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Okay, cool. No worries. My apologies - I misunderstood your original post question, and clearly could not understand from that, what I thought you might possibly be getting at. It seemed that somehow you were trying to correlate keeping one's handles or losing them, somehow to having an RSL or not. Thanks for clearing that up! Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I still don't get what you are saying. Please bear with me. Maybe I'm dense. So, if you have an RSL, you're supposed to, or are expected to lose your handles? If you don't have an RSL, you're not? I just don't get your thinking/logic or the correlation. Again, sorry - maybe I'm dense. Just for the record, with both of my (2 total in 1,900 jumps) cut-aways, I kept the handles. After pulling them, simply tucked them into my jumpsuit and did from there-on what I had to, with my reserve. The 1st chop I had an RSL, the 2nd one I did not. So again - what's your correlation? I guess I just don't see your point, and the chance of or concern of how the affect of an RSL on keeping (or causing to lose?) your handles should have absolutely NOTHING to do with one's decision on whether to have an RSL or not. I've got news for you - If you have an RSL, no matter how "fast" you are - you are NOT "beating" it (to deploying your reserve), I can nearly guarantee you. Obviously, one should still always pull both (as you've said - so we have no argument there), as I too did in my case (and many of others I've seen before and since) - yet when you get down THINKING you've beaten it, take a look at that tell-tale kink in the cable, where (again, I can nearly guarantee) the RSL had already beat you to it. In either (and any) case though - I still don't see the correlation to having (or not) an RSL, - how that pertains to this jumper either having kept his handles, or not. What are you trying to get at with this question? I'm just curious to understand. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

What's the correlation to having an RSL (or not) and keeping your handles? I'm just wondering the reasoning behind this question. Please - 'splain? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Wow - Sir "Chops-a-lot"! In only just 100 jumps. Who's doing your packing? Might wanna do some consideration of how to keep your main more cleanly opening above your head statistically more often than the worry over your reserve - which sounds like it performed as designed. Only just slightly kidding. Sounds to me like your reserve is there for you when you need it. You just need to get your instances having to need it down now is all. Ha! Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Sounds very similar to my 1st cut-away years ago. When my reserve opened, I did not even have the "joy" of seeing it inflate above my head, as the twists had my head/chin pinned to my chest! The nice thing about reserves though, even in this situation (usually) is still how stable they will fly, and allow you a nice, leisurely kick-out of the twists, once you get your wits all back about you after something like that, that is. I have no idea the percentage or statistical #'s for this, but would assume it's not all that uncommon. That said, my latest cut-away was from under such a violent spinning mess (even worse than the 1st, that seemed relatively tame by comparison), yet as I was flung away from it, the reserve inflated smooth, fast and perfectly on heading with no issues at all. Couldn't "suck beyond sucking" all that bad if yer now here fully able to post about it! Although I can identify with the feeling. Think about that. Your reserve did exactly what it was intended to do. - Save your arse! Chalk it up to experience - - - and don't forget that bottle for your rigger, and BEER for the bonfire NSTIW story. Welcome to the club. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I said with the exception of an extremely slow pull. It is clear that in your test however, that is precisely what you are instead doing! The reg states very clearly how and to what spec's to test, yet you insist on adding your OWN (non-applicable and inappropriate) variables. It is clear as well that you already absolutely and abundantly already know everything, and so much better than everybody and anybody else. This dialogue as such then, is also clearly with you, not worth continuing. It's already gotten way too far afield of the OP's original post and intent anyway - and I certainly don't think that either of us with this, are any longer adding anything substantive to that here with this any longer. All my best wishes to you Michael, in any case for your practical (and not just theoretical) both jumping and rigging career. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

C'mon guys, puh-leeze. Enough of these silly games. If the pull force being exerted already EXCEEDS the breaking / tensile strength rating of the thread, when it gets to its fully taught point (which it clearly does/will) - the thread will not STOP it, and it will break! It will not ADD, even anywhere near pound-for-pound, ADDITIONAL pull force being required, unless it was part of the initial structure (static friction as it is being referred to), that was tieing down / holding the pin in place, in the first place. And in that case if it was - the seal/thread was installed wrong. Watching this thread now is truly getting painful. You guys keep playing with each other and your words over this. Have fun. I'm out. Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Not a flame - seriously. So please do not take this as such. However, I am seeing a commonality here now running through this thread I just had to comment on: Please take it easy with the Get-Home-Itis. There are way too many instances of where concentrating so heavily on "needing to get back" has seriously injured or KILLED. Some of those instances even just recently. Please land SAFE 1st, and remember - that safe landing area, may even be BEHIND you, and AWAY from the dropzone! Trust me, it is not worth it, to NEED to get back, or try to get back at all costs. The price can become way all too easily - simply just to expensive. In more ways than one. Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Yeah. A couple of doo-hickey's and thing-a-ma-jigs. Bill, obviously this is not addressed at you. But I am just totally amazed (almost daily) how LITTLE people tend to (or care to?) know, or actually learn about the very gear they choose to (supposedly) save their lives. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Seems simple enough, and thanks for the "bloody reminder", John. Another thought on this, is the same can happen when CLOSING the door too, if you let your hand get above the hang-bar while you are closing the door, say for instance after it has been open after passing 1k, at 6-7k AGL as everyone starts getting cold. Don't ask me how I also know about this one too! I'll save everyone the extra pictures, which would clearly be "overkill" to this thread, at this point. Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

THANK YOU for (someone) finally saying/realizing that! Again - bottom line, so long as the seal is installed correctly it should be of relative little issue to increased over-all pull force being required. As the pull force already being exerted (extremely slow pulls aside) to get the pin moving, clearly exceeds the tensile strength/breaking force rating of the thread (using proper thread as well) - the thread will rather EASILY break, as the pin simply KEEPS ON MOVING past the thread reaching its tension point. Only if the thread is attached with no slack at all to it, ie: INCORRECTLY (or alternately in BillVon's WCS of an already moved pin in post #19) THEN is it any part at all, of the initial static friction that (in any significance anyway) contributes to pull force, overall. This is exactly what I have really, all along in this thread (pun intended ) been actually referring to! Finally! Someone "wins the prize"! Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Then, further: Okay, so then - what was your testing method? Just to help me understand, what you are saying then - is you tested once first pre-riggers thread seal, then again immediately thereafter POST riggers-thread seal (applied by you, presumably) being installed, and you came up with a linear INCREASE in pull-force being needed, relatively equal to the thread's rated tensile strength? With no other factors contributing other than you just simply installed the riggers seal to that same rig just tested, and it resulted in increased pull force then being required to move the pin? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Agreed. However, the original poster to this point we are now responding to (post #16) does seem to think so, and has further continued on the logic indicating that he apparently accounts for and COMPENSATES for the sealing-thread added pull-force, as part of his standard routine. As if it has an expected and common affect. Which I think you will also agree it does not. I don't think people should go away from here fearing that their rigger's seal thread is actually adding pull force to their reserve, to the extent that it should really even be a concern, let alone a consideration, as the OP seems to want them to, do you? On the whole, bottom line, the impression given (or that can be taken) from post #16 is I think, incorrect. Again, please feel free to correct me if it is I, that am instead mistaken. Post #16's Statement: The riggers seal thread ADDS 4.75lbs of pull force to the reserve-pull, per turn of thread (commonly x2). My Statement: That is incorrect! And unless the thread is being used to structurally tie-down the pin to the closing loop somehow (ie: is installed incorrectly) it does NOT add significant pull force (aside from your "WCS") to the reserve-pull at all. Which statement is correct? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Sure, that's worst case. But I would not submit as being either common, expected, or should be considered the "standard" whereby I would be purposefully reducing pre-sealing pull tensions on people's rigs because of it! You may be even CONTRIBUTING to your above scenario (of the pin moving around) then that way, by creating a reserve closing loop that is too loose. But then again, I am not a rigger. So please feel free to correct wherever you feel my thinking on this may be misguided. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Please tell me where you get these #'s and your extrapolated theory? If the sealing thread is a part of the friction load holding the pin in place in the 1st place, then it is not installed correctly. Otherwise, the snatch/break force "fail point" of the sealing thread is not linearly cumulative (ie does not add to) the overall pull force required to move the pin from the reserve closing loop, in deploying a reserve. C'mon now. Puhleeze. I wish people would not espouse as if FACT, these sorts of theories which otherwise, they clearly have no real knowledge. EDIT to add: P.S. I see in your profile that you are a Senior Rigger. So if it is me who with this is wrong - please, educate me. (seriously) coitus non circum - Moab Stone